Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan Can Social Scientists Help You Combat Global Warming? Arthur Lupia University of Michigan.

Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan

Can Social Scientists Help You

Combat Global Warming?

Arthur Lupia

University of Michigan


Can Social Scientists Help You

Combat Global Warming?

Necessary Conditions for Persuasion

www.umich.edu/~lupia

A Familiar Objective

Outcome: reduce emissions

Means: Persuade mass and elite audiences to change beliefs and actions.

Method: Educate the public and policy makers about climate change.


One view of “us”


One view of “them”Our target audience is

ignorant

lazy

apathetic.


PropositionFailure is the norm.

The consequence is tragic.

The problem is not “them.” The problem is “us.”


Your Task

Get the audience from A to B.

A. The audience’s initial state of belief and action.

B. Get “them” to where we want them to be.


Necessary Conditions for Success What do “they” want to know?

The science of attention

What will they think about? The science of elaboration

Who & what will they believe? The science of credibility


The Battle for Attention & Working Memory WM has a very limited capacity (Baddeley: 72)

WM has a high decay rate (for most stimuli, <1ms).

Communications are parsed. To get attention an utterance must: imply large in pleasure or pain (urgency) prevail over proximate others


What will you remember?

?








What will you remember? If we try very hard, we can reconstruct only tiny

fragments of life events.

Even chunks that seem very important at the time or to others.

Implication: What a target audience remembers may not be what you want it to remember.


The Battle for Elaboration & LTM WM provides an opportunity to leave a cognitive legacy.

relevant activation potentials is not automatic.

LTM requires elaboration. Perceptions of urgency and efficacy fuel cognitive effort.

Chunks leave a legacy if perceived as unique and highly utility-relevant.

Necessary but not sufficient


Implications for Climate Science To most citizens,

The benefits of reducing emissions are: distant / abstract / uncertain

The costs of lifestyle change are: immediate / concrete / certain


Social Solutions Make it close.

Highlight local consequences of actions that also reduce emissions.

Make it real. Highlight visible consequences of actions that also reduce emissions. If TA cannot see how to be effective, they will not try.

Make it personal Enlist speakers whose support for such activities counter stereotypes.


A Challenge...

“duck”


…in the Political Context Politics entails conflicts not easily resolved.

It yields language indeterminacy with a nasty edge. Words have multiple meanings. Meanings are context-dependent. Conflict brings incentives to manipulate context and meaning.

Result: “communication games” with unusual incentives. People have to work harder to learn. Persuasion requires CREDIBILITY


Math Class vs. Politics The front of the room is

the center of attention. There are exams. Your most important

choices are somewhat public.

There is one teacher.


Math Class vs. Politics The front of the room is

the center of attention.

There are exams.

Your parents, friends, and prospective employers may learn your grades.

There is one authority figure.

Relevant stimuli are in many places.

No exams.

Your most important choices are private.

Competing views are expected.


Who is credible on topics of climate related policy?

Environmentalists?

Scientists?

Politicians?


Credible Foundations For contested issues, high credibility is a must.

Credibility is domain-specific and is bestowed by the audience.

Credibility is a function of Source attributes* Message attributes Contextual attributes* Audience effects*


Familiar Conditions In a signaling model,

communicative dynamics depend on The distance between

sender and receiver ideal points

The presence of external costs & incentive structures

Belief change based on Bayesian updating

Exit Poll, Presentation: © 1994, 2004 Arthur LupiaDemocratic Dilemma © 1998 Arthur Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins

Exit Poll, Presentation: © 1994, 2004 Arthur LupiaDemocratic Dilemma © 1998 Arthur Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins

Proposition 3 - 1

The only non -babbling, non -neologistic SE in the basic model is:π14 = (1, 0, 0, 1);

A “ common” speaker tells the truth. A “ conflicting” speaker lies.π5 = 1; if bZ+ (1 -b)Z ≥0 and π5 =0 otherwise.π6 = 1; if bZ+ (1 -b)Z ≥0 and π6 =0 otherwise.

Non-expert speaker says what he thinks will induce his preferred out come.πr = (1,0); π

r= (π

r(x;B), π

r(x;W)).

The receiver believes the signal.

This equilibrium requires Condition A:[(1- c)k +[(1 -k)×[πs(B; h5)c + πs(B; h6)(1-c)]]] ≤ bU/(b-1)U[ck + [(1 -k)×[πs(B; h5)c + πs(B; h6)(1-c)]]]

and Condition B:[ck + [(1 -k) ×[(1- πs(B; h5))c + (1-πs(B; h6))(1-c)]] ] ≥ bU /(b-1)U[(1 - c)k + [(1 -k) ×[ (1- πs(B; h5))c + (1-πs(B; h6))(1-c)]] ],

where at least one of the inequalities is strict.


Implications of GT Model Credibility is domain-specific and is bestowed by the

audience.

Absent external forces, persuasion requires perceived common interests and perceived speaker knowledge.

External forces can substitute for speaker attributes.

When feedback is good and the choice space is limited, people tend to make effective decisions about whom to believe.


Lab Experiments A subject is a voter or advisor.

The voter predicts coin tosses and earns $1/correct prediction.

Advisor: “heads” or “tails.”

Perceptions vary: hidden die rolls determine speaker interests & knowledge.

Institutions vary: penalties for lying, costly effort, verification present in selected trials.


First Trials Complete information.

Incomplete information. No advice.

Incomplete information. Advisor is paid for your success.

Incomplete information. Advisor is paid for your failure.


From The Democratic Dilemma. Chapter 7.

5060708090

100

% Observed

NO Suff. PFL Suff. Verif.

Outcomes

"Bad" speaker trials

Persuasion Reasoned Choice

With sufficient penalties or verification, we expect persuasion and reasoned choice. Otherwise, we do not.


From Arthur Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality. Ch. 3.New York: Cambridge University Press.

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Observed

P & RC None P only

Predicted Outcome

All trials

Persuasion Reasoned Choice


CATI Experiment N=1464 “... talk show host [SENDER] [POSITION] spending money to build more

prisons. What do you think? Is spending money to build prisons a good idea or a bad idea?”

“How much would you say that [SENDER] knows about what will happen if this country spends money to build more prisons -- a lot, some, a little, or nothing?”

“On most political issues would you say that you and [SENDER] agree all of the time, most of the time, only some of the time, or never?”


Random Selection

No Speaker20%

CONTEXT 1Limbaugh

20%

CONTEXT 2Donahue

20%

Message Content: Supports

CONTEXT 1Limbaugh

20%

CONTEXT 2Donahue

20%

Message Content: Opposes

RESPONDENT


From Arthur Lupia and Mathew D. McCubbins. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Ch 8.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Metric: (%Yes|Heard Supports) - (%No|Heard Supports) L to R: declining perceptions of trust and knowledge, we expect declining

effects.

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

AK aK Mid ~ak

LimbaughEffect ofTreatment

Donahue Effectof Treatment


Just Ideology?

The effect of factors such as ideology depend on perceived agreement and knowledge. The converse is not true. Perceived knowledge & trust are the fundamental source

effects.

-30-20

-10

010

20

3040

50

AK aK Other

SameIdeology

DifferentIdeology


Credibility in Strategic ContextsCredibility = Perceived Interest Proximity x Perceived

Knowledge

Perceptions can be based on source attributes or external factors.

The effects are interactive.

Source effects are a consequence of these factors. The converse is not true.


Principle 1 (Andreasen 1995)

Effective “The organization’s

mission is seen as bringing about behavior change by meeting the target market’s needs and wants.”

Ineffective “The organization’s

mission is seen as inherently good.”


Principle 2

Effective “The assumption is

made that customers have very good reasons for what they are doing.” The target has

perceptions, needs, and wants.

Ineffective

Customers are the problem. They are seen as deficient in one of two ways. Ignorance. Lack of Motivation.

We must learn and adapt. We must learn and adapt.


Implications Many “experts” and “advocates” overestimate their persuasive

powers. That change should occur does not mean that it will.

Information transmission is not competence transmission. One is trivial, the other is not.

“They” have reasons for what they do. “Real” knowledge of the science of learning beats “idealized” fictions

about how citizens learn.

Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan Can Social Scientists Help You Combat Global Warming? Arthur Lupia University of Michigan.

Documents

science of attention

climate change

center of attention

necessary conditions

important choices

relevant stimuli

global warming

climate scienceto